Forcing would-be Canadians to take an oath to the Queen as a condition of citizenship is constitutional, even if it does violate free-speech rights, an Ontario court ruled Friday.

yongyee yang's insight:

I think that this article is important because it leads back to the days of queens and kings. Supposedly, would be canadians have to make an oath to the queen of canada, pledging faithfulness and true allegiance to her and her heirs/successors. I don't think that this should be happenning anymore because if I'm correct Canada has a constitutional monarchy, so really, the queen hardly has any power, just authority. Also, this violates free speech rights.

I like what you have said about the difference between Canada's government now and what it used to be. I think that Canada has changed and they need to be living in the present and not the past. There is no need for them to take an oath to a queen that doesn't really rule over them anymore.

I find this article really important because it talks about a plan that would take away two fundamental rights. The freedom of expression and freedom of religion. This Parti Quebecois plan would prohibit public employees from wearing obvious religious symbols, which includes the hijab which is a piece of garment that covers a womens face, can be found in Bahrain. I think that this plan shouldn't have been approved because it can cause many problems for the public.

I agree with you. The public might not agree with this proposal. I do like that one of they are trying for equality for genders. I don't know if it would just effect women. Men also have their own religious beliefs and that would affect them as well as women

Warrants are not required by the U.S. government to access historical cell site information, an appeals court ruled in an order.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects only reasonable expectations of privacy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit wrote in a 2-1 ruling on Tuesday. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

"Because a cell phone user makes a choice to get a phone, to select a particular service provider, and to make a call, and because he knows that the call conveys cell site information, the provider retains this information, and the provider will turn it over to the police if they have a court order, he voluntarily conveys his cell site data each time he makes a call," the court added.

Cell site information is clearly a business record, collected by the service provider for its own business purposes, and without being asked to so by the government, the court said in the order.

The dispute hinged around whether law enforcement agents can access cell site data with a relatively easy-to-obtain order under section 2703 (d) of the Stored Communications Act, which is based on a showing of "specific and articulable facts," instead of using a search warrant after showing probable cause.

Rights groups American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation and others have argued that the government should be required to seek a warrant to access the location information, because it is sensitive and can reveal a great deal about a person. The groups argued in court that SCA grants courts the discretion to require the government to obtain a warrant based upon probable cause before accessing historical cell phone location data.

I find this article particularly interesting. The fact that cops can now access cell site data is rather intrusive, they also don't need a warrant to do this. Its actually really scary because not all cops are good guys and i'm really worried about the fact that they don't need a warrant. I'm really against this because cell site information is really private and you really could learn a lot about a person. So in the wrong hands this could get out of hand.

With the discovery that the Department of Justice had secretly obtained phone records from the Associated Press, members of Congress have suggested enacting a shield law for the media.

A shield law would open the door to more government abuse of power. In the last few years, the executive branch has attempted to dismantle the rule of law by unilaterally deciding which laws to enforce and which to ignore. If the federal government were to seize the ability to determine which rights the American people can exercise and which rights they cannot, the American way of life would cease to exist.What is truly disheartening, is that this subject matter should not even be needing to be discussed in Congress or anywhere else. The Constitution guarantees everyone the freedom of speech ,and the freedom of the press.Any American has the right to print, broadcast or make any statement they wish. The reason congress is talking about a shield law is because it will give them another way to infringe on our rights.Passing a shield law would give the government the power to determine whether certain types of speech were acceptable as media or unacceptable because it wasn’t in line with the narrative of the day. The shield law is designed to give the politicians a shield from criticism by giving them the authority to define speech in a way that protects them.

I think that this article is very important. It talks about a shield law that would "protect" politicians from criticism. Something interesting about this though is that the government could easily abuse this by determining which rights that the americans could use. They could determine certain types of speech unacceptable. I honestly don't agree with this law because we the people have the freedom to speech.

This article talks about transgenders in Quebec Canada. Its very important because over in Quebec, there are huge barriers for transgenders. The current legal framework/papers make it hard for some students because they'll be outed when they're appearance goes against their lettered identification papers. This can make it extremely stressful for the kids/people who are a transgender. I think that Canada should do something about it so that transgenders in Canada could change their identification letter sooner. That way it isn't so stressful on the kids and others going through the same problem.

The United Nations has censured the Canadian government for its gross violations of the rights of children and has accused the country of "serious and widespread discrimination" against First Nations children.

On Monday, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) issued its formal report on Canada's treatment of children and the country's commitment to the world body's Convention on the Rights of the Child, Canada's CTV News reported on Tuesday.

The CRC accused Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government of violating the convention by introducing Bill C-10 to the country's Youth Criminal Justice Act earlier this year.

Bill C-10, which the CRC says does not comply with international standards, allows for harsher penalties for youth offenders and makes it easier for courts to judge them as adults.

The report also expressed concern over the Canadian government's discrimination against its indigenous and black children, who are more likely to be incarcerated than other children.

Many political analysts say that under Stephen Harper's government, human rights abuses in Canada have increased dramatically.

Press TV has conducted an interview with Alfred Lambremont, a human rights lawyer from Vancouver, to further discuss the issue.

This article along with its video talks about how there are many human rights abuses along with child and discrimination. I find this article important because the government is apparently trying to cover this up. Also, reporters talking about this in Canada, are having things happenning to them by the government. I honestly don't like how Canada is dealing with this, I think that they could do a better job.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has lined up some national Republican support for his outrage that the Justice Department is trying to block Louisiana's school voucher program in districts that are under desegregation orders. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott joined Jindal for an outrage session on Wednesday, with Bush calling the Justice Department lawsuit "purely political." If by "purely political" you mean "intended to prevent schools from being segregated," it certainly is. If you mean, as Bush went on to say, "perhaps payback for political elections of the past," then no, not really.

As the Justice Department put it in its lawsuit:

"[I]n the 2012-2013 school year, the State awarded scholarships to at least 570 students from 22, or nearly two-thirds, of the school districts operating under federal desegregation orders. In 13 of those school districts, State action in issuing vouchers to students caused the schoolwide racial demographics to stray further from district-wide demographic percentages and resulted in an increase in racially disproportionate representation in 34 historically segregated schools."

Jindal has aggressively marketed vouchers to African-American families, while describing the voucher program as a civil rights program (presenting various forms of school privatization as civil rights advances being a very intentional strategy of the corporate education reform movement, as Diane Ravitch has described). But many of the private schools that accept vouchers are church-run schools, often with extremely weak academic programs and little financial oversight, and the Justice Department lawsuit makes clear that in many districts, resegregation is the end result of the program.

The Justice Department isn't trying to block Louisiana's entire voucher program, just make sure that it doesn't undo desegregation efforts. And that's got Bobby Jindal, Jeb Bush, and Tim Scott terribly upset. Probably their anger isn't because they want increased segregation in Louisiana schools. But they certainly don't think that's a concern that should stand in the way of increased privatization in Louisiana schools.

This article is very important because it involves a lot of thought. It talks about schools in Florida that are segregating because the federal government told them to. The catch is that schools that do do this will get awarded scholarships, and many of the schools accept them because they have weak academic programs and are church run schools. I think that the state shouldn't do this because many people fought to end segregation and by doing this, its like insulting them.

RALEIGH, North Carolina (Reuters) - Civil rights leaders in North Carolina are calling for crime scene video evidence to be made public after police said an officer shot an unarmed, 24-year-old former...

yongyee yang's insight:

I think that this article is important because it talks about the civil rights group and what they think on this country today. Some points given were that a lot of african americans could be killed for no reason by the very people protecting him. I actually agree with this because in a study, they proved that police pulled over more african american drivers with nice cars than they do with white americans. It proves that things like racism and discrimination are still there and could still easily happen.

Sharing your scoops to your social media accounts is a must to distribute your curated content. Not only will it drive traffic and leads through your content, but it will help show your expertise with your followers.

Integrating your curated content to your website or blog will allow you to increase your website visitors’ engagement, boost SEO and acquire new visitors. By redirecting your social media traffic to your website, Scoop.it will also help you generate more qualified traffic and leads from your curation work.

Distributing your curated content through a newsletter is a great way to nurture and engage your email subscribers will developing your traffic and visibility.
Creating engaging newsletters with your curated content is really easy.